flapjack Posted October 19, 2005 Report Share Posted October 19, 2005 Not sure if someone requested this yet, but a web interface would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaSteve Posted October 19, 2005 Report Share Posted October 19, 2005 learn to use the search in future please . http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?t=503 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keloran Posted October 19, 2005 Report Share Posted October 19, 2005 no a webinterface would be stupid, wish people would stop requesting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosblade Posted October 19, 2005 Report Share Posted October 19, 2005 Requested at least twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flapjack Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 ScubaSteve:Sorry, I didn't search. I went 3-4 pages back and didn't see anything.Keloran:A web interface may be "stupid" for you, but if someone is requesting it, obviously it's not "stupid" for them.As for me, I'm at work more than I'm at home on the computer. It would be really nice to add, stop, start torrents from here.Now, if you don't have a job... and sit around at home all day, then you obviously wouldn't need this feature. Regardless, it doesn't make the request "stupid"... It makes you stupid for slamming a feature just because you don't have a need for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paritybit Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Well if you are at work you should be working or using vnc to manage your torrents. uTorrent is a bittorrent client not a bloody webserver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flapjack Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Most ports are aggressively blocked, so vnc or remote desktop is out of the question.Most web ports (80, 8080, 8008, etc...) are not blocked or monitored. If I were to configure RD or VNC over use an HTTP port, the sniffer would still pick it up at the packet level and block it.Rufus has a webserver, and runs pretty well. Though it's other features make it a bit bloaty. A webserver would not enlarge uTorrent's footprint that much...Well if you are at work you should be working or using vnc to manage your torrents. uTorrent is a bittorrent client not a bloody webserver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paritybit Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Anything said here is just redundant there are a few other topics with plenty of posts on this subject. It is about 50/50 but I don't really see the point. I spend a lot of my time at university and don't access my bittorrent client from here there isn't much point. I have everything set up so it could run for about a week unattended well would be able to run indefinately without intervention if I kept queuing torrents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flapjack Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 You're right... arguing is pointless.I think it should be added in a way that one could disable it if not needed, so it wouldn't use up any extra memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flapjack Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 After searching, I saw this post by vurlix, a site admin:"A simple web interface might actually be included in future versions. It's really not that much extra bloat, and it's not that difficult to implement."I wish I had seen this earlier, before I fired up another thread about it. Lesson learned. I still don't see what the ire is all about. People are fairly divided on the subject, but people against it seem so fired up about it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuyskywalker Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 One of the most useful features of the ABC ("Yet Another Bittorrent Client") was it's built in web-interface.Technically, it was just a dump TCP interface that would accept a connection, wait for an authcode accompanied by a request, and dump information back, then close the connection. It's pretty simple, but if you used a webserver, you could have a PHP (or whatever) script setup to manage your torrents.To those stay-at-home, use VNC, too-much-feature-bloat nay sayers, this is actually a very useful feature. Having both a minimal webserver, or minimal web-interface would be very small, and provide a load of functionality.There are many instances, like others have noted where having a job and wanting to start a good torrent while at work can be difficult without this kind of feature. However, I use it for yet another entirely different reason: multiple users.I live with 4 other geeks, and if we all run torrents, our poor DSL takes the beating of a life time and we can barely use http! However, with a handy webclient interface running torrents from a central server (which is handy for a squad of geeks), this becomes a non-issue.Er, well, in short +1 vote for some sort of way to remotely manage your torrents (be it a built in webserver, or some simplfied query service.) Also, if such a query service is choosen over a built in webserver, I'd happily dontate my time to making a slick PHP interface for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keloran Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 see i dont find it stupid in that sense what i find stupid is most peoples interpretation of a webinterfacemost people want a full blown webserver built into uT that they can add torrents and stuff to from anywhere, your interpretation is that badalthough i would prefer it to be plugin based, so it could be used from a different sort of interface, IRC/XML what ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flapjack Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 I really don't care how it's implemented, as long as I can start, stop and add torrents using a URL.I don't need to pull up detailed info or any of that garbage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gafoorgk Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 I really don't care how it's implementedshare your ideas here please; http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?t=503i'm also explaining how it can be implemented without disturbing main program. but some people seems to be not wanting this feature just because they don't know what they really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisa01 Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 I'm all for a web interface too, makes it so much easier to download stuff. I've got an iBook, but I do my downloading with a PC, since it can be on 24/7. But it's often occupied by others in my family, so being able to monitor it with a web interface would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj26 Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 I would personally love to write a little web interface plugin. I'd definitly make it a plugin, not part of the main executable. All that would be required of the devs is to expose some interfaces and allow plugin loading. With C++ it shouldn't take too much overhead to do.This sort of thinking, though, would really require a bit of restructuring. For a proper plugin interface it would require a degree of MVC modelling so that data provided to the standard client could be provided to plugins, and feedback from the standard client could be provided by the plugins as well, etc. It starts getting bloated from there.The web interface I'd make would be a backwards-compatible AJAX hybrid which uses minimal bandwidth to do AJAX interface updates, and falls back on manual forms and page refreshes if the browser doesn't support AJAX. I've been specialising in this sort of stuff lately.Personally I'd love to see uTorrent turn into a performance-optimized app which only loads the plugins it needs depending on user preferences. For example, the web interface would be a plugin, the ipfilter would be another, dht another (mainline and azureus seperate?), possibly even seperating the main interface into a plugin so a command-line or service/daemon interface could be run.Updates and fetching of new plugins could be done centrally with the addition of 3rd party plugin providers as required (through a filetype or protocol). Or that might be too much... I'm bloating my ideas.I'm tempted to go and make this myself now. Hmm...I may at the very least research what sort of bloating this would cause. Is it possible to do this in an optimized form? I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 The developers already stated multiple times that they're not interested in a plug-in system. I'm uncertain how much clearer they can get the message across... :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 Also, they have said that they are, indeed, adding a web interface to µTorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj26 Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 @1c3d0g: Yeah, I just saw this post about it, sorry.I'm still going to look into it myself, though. Alternatly I could just sniff the data out of uTorrent as it is now :-)@Ultima: Yeah, I just saw that post, too. Geez I need to read around first :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 Indeed, but to the best of my knowledge not as a plug-in system... :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indian Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 agreed.. web interface is needed for this great client to make it perfect bittorrent client Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GezusK Posted December 5, 2005 Report Share Posted December 5, 2005 My only suggestion, is to implement it like ABC has. It doesn't handle the actual web server duties, it just feeds data to a website that displays the info. This is a better method than having the web server on your own system. For one, most of those ad-blocking programs route things to your local ip on port 80, so that would be a problem if you have a web server running on your system. Some may say that you could just use a different port, problem is, most places block other ports, so no point in doing it that way. I also would think just creating a data feed would use less resources than a full web server, and be quite simple to enable or disable. I'm switching to µtorrent from ABC, and really like what this guy has done with the web interface: phpABC http://www.swiftlytilting.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp00k Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 A web interface would be definitely great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRH Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 I agree - that'd make uTorrent a total alternative to other clients! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 Just because µTorrent doesn't have feature x doesn't make it not a total replacement to other clients. If that were the case, then µTorrent will never be a total replacement, since µTorrent won't be implementing every single feature imanigable by mankind for torrents. In my case, µTorrent already is a total replacement for other clients =PEither way, this is already going to be implemented, if ludde hasn't changed his mind, so no more need to beat on a dead horse xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.